Enter your email to subscribe:

A criminal defendant ("petitioner") who was represented jointly along with her spouse in connection with drug charges established that counsel labored under a conflict of interest. Thus, the South Carolina Supreme Court concluded that the trial court improperly denied post-conviction relief:

At the PCR hearing, both plea counsel and Petitioner testified
that counsel spent more time preparing Husband’s case despite the fact that
Petitioner was pleading guilty to a majority of the charged offenses and faced
a more severe sentence.

In terms of the conflict of interest, plea counsel acknowledged
that she discussed this issue with Husband, but could not recall specifically
talking to Petitioner about such a conflict. Plea counsel also admitted that
she argued for leniency in Husband’s case and requested the plea judge
reconsider his sentence. In contrast, plea counsel did not make these
arguments on behalf of Petitioner. Moreover, Petitioner’s and Husband’s
interests were adverse to one another given Petitioner pleaded guilty to the
majority of the drug charges whereas Husband pleaded guilty to a single charge
of PWID marijuana within proximity of a school. Significantly, plea counsel
stated at the plea proceeding that Husband was originally “charged with
everything,” but she “was able to get the solicitor who had the case at the
time to dismiss all of his cases.” A review of the plea proceeding also
reveals that plea counsel argued for leniency on behalf of Husband by comparing
his more limited involvement in the crimes to that of Petitioner. We believe
plea counsel’s approach essentially pitted Husband against Petitioner, which
was clearly detrimental to Petitioner’s interests.

Under the circumstances, the court held that the petitioner need not demonstrate prejudice in order to establish entitlement to relief. (Mike Frisch)